Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more.
23 17 46 11
Firelock76 I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind. Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats. You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments: "These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships." "They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull." "We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that." "Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable." "All the above being said, they're just not worth the money." Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about! This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us. In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story. Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind.
Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats.
You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments:
"These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships."
"They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull."
"We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that."
"Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable."
"All the above being said, they're just not worth the money."
Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about!
This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us.
In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story.
Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
But let's get back to railroads. If a two person crew is as vital to safety as some claim, why don't we require two person crews on over the road trucks? After all, railroads operate on a fixed guideway, on a largely private right of way, with multiple safety systems that can alert and, in some cases, override the engineer. True, the existing rail safety systems don't cover every possible contingency, as demonstrated by the Philadelphia accident. But they cover a lot more than the largely non-existent automatic safety systems for trucks. Moreover, trucks don't operate on a fixed guideway or on a private right-of-way. Rather, trucks operate on public roadways, mixed with other vehicles. Some truck rigs, in fact, are actually "trains" hauling mutiple trailers. Trucks depend almost entirely on their single person crews (the driver) to keep them out of trouble. The likelihood of fatigue, inattention, etc leading to a serious accident would seem to be much higher with a truck (or, for that matter, a bus) than with a train. Just this past week, there was a serious truck accident in Indiana where a trucker rear ended a line of stopped vehicles in a construction zone, killing 5 (making it worse than the Metro North passenger rail accident), in spite of multiple warning signs which should have alerted him to the upcoming construction zone. And, if you live in a big city, nearly every day you'll hear a traffic report about a truck turning itself over by operating too fast around an entrance or exit ramp. If this were really a "safety" issue, the regulators would be demanding two people in truck cabs.
carnej1If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources.
When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder. Which touches on the concept of "provides nothing to the productive workflow" as I posted earlier.
The frame of reference that I made the comment from was actually more along the lines of looking back at the way entrepreneur-equity used to operate.
Love them or hate them, at least the robber barrons of old actually put in a day's work in exchange for their slice of the pie. Now-a-days mom-n-pop hobbyist stockholders seem to expect their investment to be their entire contribution to the operation and their idea of "productive work" is to just sit around clipping dividend coupons while salaried specialists run the business.
And it is That double sucker-hose which leaves so little money to spare to pay the blue collar guys to just perform the work that actually GENERATES revenue.
Wizlish NorthWest Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other. This is actually two things. First, each of the vehicles is capable of reacting much faster than any 'human', even one with very good driving reflexes (where the 'instinctive' first reaction will be both correct and not generate excessive force that causes trouble at a later point in an incident). A properly-designed autonomous system will have some 'expert-system' capability; it will recognize not only the sensed parameters, but also keep a wider 'situational awareness' about what it can and can't do, right up to understanding when it's better to take paint off cars in the adjacent lane than to miss the impact attenuators on a bridge abutment. Second -- as you note, the computers can talk to each other. So they can mutually determine a way out of a dangerous situation ... a couple of trucks could trap a skidding car and keep it from spinning, for example, or a truck could hold a car that had lost effective power under its second trailer and decelerate it to a stop in an appropriate line that keeps it in lane and away from incidental traffic or roadside hazards... In practice, one of the premises of ITS is that the vehicles are all in some sort of communications 'datasphere' (and almost incidentally with each other in 'awareness', so that ad hoc communications at higher data rate, or higher security, or whatever, can be commanded between or among particular groups, or utilities). This is not Skynet, or Forbin's Colossus, or Alpha soixante-neuf or whatever. In the systems my father was working on in college, it was possible for the 'environment' and surrounding vehicles to mock up a full control program to replace a crashed piece of software, or to emulate the functionality of many potential 'failing' pieces of equipment, since the 'best' solution is not always the quickest stop or the most expedient 15' of shoulder on a well-traveled freeway... Of course, I haven't forgotten that where there is artificial intelligence there will probably be much more artificial stupidity. Commercial systems will have bugs, and some of them will probably turn out to be much more serious than we presently expect. One of the key principles in design is to be able to dance a solution when such a serious bug occurs...
NorthWest Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
This is actually two things.
First, each of the vehicles is capable of reacting much faster than any 'human', even one with very good driving reflexes (where the 'instinctive' first reaction will be both correct and not generate excessive force that causes trouble at a later point in an incident). A properly-designed autonomous system will have some 'expert-system' capability; it will recognize not only the sensed parameters, but also keep a wider 'situational awareness' about what it can and can't do, right up to understanding when it's better to take paint off cars in the adjacent lane than to miss the impact attenuators on a bridge abutment.
Second -- as you note, the computers can talk to each other. So they can mutually determine a way out of a dangerous situation ... a couple of trucks could trap a skidding car and keep it from spinning, for example, or a truck could hold a car that had lost effective power under its second trailer and decelerate it to a stop in an appropriate line that keeps it in lane and away from incidental traffic or roadside hazards...
In practice, one of the premises of ITS is that the vehicles are all in some sort of communications 'datasphere' (and almost incidentally with each other in 'awareness', so that ad hoc communications at higher data rate, or higher security, or whatever, can be commanded between or among particular groups, or utilities).
This is not Skynet, or Forbin's Colossus, or Alpha soixante-neuf or whatever. In the systems my father was working on in college, it was possible for the 'environment' and surrounding vehicles to mock up a full control program to replace a crashed piece of software, or to emulate the functionality of many potential 'failing' pieces of equipment, since the 'best' solution is not always the quickest stop or the most expedient 15' of shoulder on a well-traveled freeway...
Of course, I haven't forgotten that where there is artificial intelligence there will probably be much more artificial stupidity. Commercial systems will have bugs, and some of them will probably turn out to be much more serious than we presently expect. One of the key principles in design is to be able to dance a solution when such a serious bug occurs...
Hackers delight!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
When you have a Skybus composed largely of multiple unpowered vehicles, in a consist two miles long that masses 15 kilotons or better, come back and you can be more proud if there are no problems...
NorthWestWell, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
Note that this happy situation should not be expected to prevail under the current "ITS" for railroads -- PTC and an associated 'cloud'. The data radios have insufficient bandwidth and insufficient current coverage to assure the necessary pervasive coverage. Current rules don't favor use of multipurpose OTS equipment or solutions, to say nothing of many kinds of AI/ES assistance or 'telepresence' approaches. We've already seen that even a few seconds' lapse of 'oversight' at ACS-64 or 17 Mile Grade acceleration speeds can lead to problems that no amount of connected intelligence can rectify.
Speaking of "Unmanned trains" Has anyone ridden the Skybus in Vancouver BC. It operates with no operator onboard. It does have an exclusive ROW. Not aware of significant problems.
schlimm Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements.
Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements.
If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
Semper VaporoI could ALMOST think that a train could be unattended while in motion, but the unexpected will always require a PEOPLE to handle the problems that inevitably come up. I am quite against trucks or cars on the highway without a driver... bad enough with some of the drivers that ARE in attendance!!!!
True, as many minor incidents with air travel have shown. If the computer thinks one thing is happening and another is actually happening, bad things happen. I don't want 'What's it doing now?' on our roads or rails.
Perhaps we need a new thread on this?
NorthWest Semper Vaporo If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)? Even with computer 'perfect' train handling, (and considering what computers do elsewhere, likely because of it) things such as knuckles and other fatigued parts will still break, necessitating a crewmember somewhere to fix things. Master conductor or onboard, the train is still a blockage. As an aside, ore trains in South Africa that operate with one man crews are equipped with motor scooters to reach problems mid-train. Of course this came with the expense of installing acess roads alongside all of the mainlines.
Semper Vaporo If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)?
Even with computer 'perfect' train handling, (and considering what computers do elsewhere, likely because of it) things such as knuckles and other fatigued parts will still break, necessitating a crewmember somewhere to fix things. Master conductor or onboard, the train is still a blockage.
As an aside, ore trains in South Africa that operate with one man crews are equipped with motor scooters to reach problems mid-train. Of course this came with the expense of installing acess roads alongside all of the mainlines.
That was my point actually. I wonder what will happen to the "unmanned" trucks on the highway when there is bridge out and a State Trooper pointing to take a detour? What will happen when a car smushes into the side of the 'unmanned' truck? Or when a tire blows, or the motor goes PKGS.
I could ALMOST think that a train could be unattended while in motion, but the unexpected will always require a PEOPLE to handle the problems that inevitably come up. I am quite against trucks or cars on the highway without a driver... bad enough with some of the drivers that ARE in attendance!!!! I don't even want the local Pizzaria delivering my deep-dish-cheese-crust-extra-provalone-sausage-and-braunschweiger-anchovy via drone!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
No, I'm not going to bite on this one.
Layoffs and off shoring have nothing to do with the issue at hand. And I will not deal with them here.
schlimmOnly new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity.
I could not disagree more strongly with this false statement.
What's left over after all the bills are paid and all the paychecks covered belongs to the owners. (Investors AKA stockholders.) A railroad can distribute all that's left over to the owners. But they don't do that.
They take a good chunk of the owners' earnings and use it for capital expenditures. When the owners have part of their earnings reinvested in the railroad (which is what happens) they are effectively putting capital in to the railroad. Someone who is a current owner of railroad stock is having a chunk of his/her earnings used to increase the capital investment in the railroad.
This happens every year. So current investors are adding to the railroad's capital structure every year.
As to the Solow residual, it exists and is very real. But it has nothing to do with the fact that railroads need capital and investors continuously supply capital. Capital is in the cited equations. The need for capital is not going to go away. The railroads are always going to need it and investors are a good way to get it.
WizlishAnd in the end, very little demand, in terms of paid-in dollars and cents, was sustainable for the pure high-speed point-to-point trains. I think it's instructive to look at why ... and what other forms of 'quicker' or 'better' service did pay. My impression is still that for most shipments, a guaranteed arrival time or even window is far more valuable than a quick-as-we-can-go promise.
For the Milwaukee Road (in receivership) Sprint service only, there were two main points:
1. Scheduled departure and arrival times which was essential to attract shippers.
2. The speed (40mph sustained - 60 mph top) was not for "quick-as-we-can-go" but for better equipment utilization: one round trip within a 24 hour period combined with changes in the standard crew (3 man) district arrangements allowed Sprint to continue profitable operations (started June 1978), even on a small margin, after the FRA subsidy period of two years ended. The Milwaukee Road actually turned a profit in 1984. I am not sure when the Sprint service ended (perhaps after purchase by Soo in 1985?), but it was successful when it ran.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
NorthWest I have to wonder what the possibility of unmanned road vehicles will have on this debate in the approaching decades. I still think they are a ways off, but technology is improving and the possibility of driverless trucks may be important in the future.
I have to wonder what the possibility of unmanned road vehicles will have on this debate in the approaching decades. I still think they are a ways off, but technology is improving and the possibility of driverless trucks may be important in the future.
Oops, now yer talkin' "no man" crews!
If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)?
All this high-speed stuff was fascinating -- Falcon, Sprint, Viking, the BSM and Super C and Apollos (and, much later, the accelerated Z-train testing with borrowed Genesis power).
And in the end, very little demand, in terms of paid-in dollars and cents, was sustainable for the pure high-speed point-to-point trains. I think it's instructive to look at why ... and what other forms of 'quicker' or 'better' service did pay.
My impression is still that for most shipments, a guaranteed arrival time or even window is far more valuable than a quick-as-we-can-go promise.
Wow!! The C&NW tried to compete with a once-a-day Viking service, but that did not work out.
schlimm Sprint service started June 5, 1978. One train could make a round trip (800 miles) daily. They raninitially three trains daily on a schedule of 10 hours with single-engine, 25 car trains, expanding to 5-6 daily.
Sprint service started June 5, 1978. One train could make a round trip (800 miles) daily. They raninitially three trains daily on a schedule of 10 hours with single-engine, 25 car trains, expanding to 5-6 daily.
My book has a picture of the first departure out of the Twin Cities on that day. The train started moving after an official fired a starter's pistol.
Jeff
I looked up one of my MILW books ("The Milwaukee Road 1928 to 1985") to see when they went to reduced crews. It said in early April 1978 they made agreements to operate "certain" trains with an engineer, conductor and one brakeman. In 1982 that was extended to all trains and yard jobs.
In 1980 when the RI ceased operation, the DRI&NW (The DRI Line, owned then by MILW and BN) provided interim service in the Quad Cities and on the main line to Wilton, IA and later on to Iowa City. They still used a 4 man crew. After about a year, the DRI Line quit and the MILW took over operations. (The DRI Line was only a switching company. Any originating traffic was billed out as either MILW or BN. I was told the line's share of traffic was via MILW and the BN wanted the DRI Line out of there.) The MILW was able to use 3 man crews. I knew the crew on the east end of the main line operation. They were all ex RI, and had been at the top of the seniority list. One brakeman had to bump onto the west crew. He stayed there until a man retired and he was able to return to the east crew. IAIS took over in late 1984 and all the exRI MILW crews I knew retired.
jeffhergert I'm thinking the MILW's sprint trains were a 3 man crew, at a time when 4 or 5 men were still standard. It was a few years later when MILW negotiated 3 man crews. Jeff
I'm thinking the MILW's sprint trains were a 3 man crew, at a time when 4 or 5 men were still standard. It was a few years later when MILW negotiated 3 man crews.
greyhoundsThat is real economics, not the nonsense that investors don't contribute to the productive flow of work (you can't have a railroad without capital and the investors provide capital.)
Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements. Corporations often attempt to improve their EPS through use of profits to buyback existing shares, which actually reduces available capital. Another way to increase available captital is to reinvest profits, rather than distribute them to investors and top management.
Most current thinking on productivity (especially on the macroeconomic level) looks at Total Factor Productivity, which uses the Solow residual and thus is expressed by the equation:
where output (Y) as a function of total-factor productivity (A), capital input (K), labor input (L), and the two inputs' respective shares of output (α and β are the capital input share of contribution for K and L respectively). An increase in either A, K or L will lead to an increase in output. While capital and labor input are tangible, total-factor productivity appears to be more intangible as it can range from technology to knowledge of worker (human capital). Technology growth and efficiency are regarded as two of the biggest sub-sections of Total Factor Productivity, the former possessing "special" inherent features such as positive externalities and non-rivalness which enhance its position as a driver of economic growth.
Total Factor Productivity is often seen as the real driver of growth within an economy and studies reveal that whilst labor and investment are important contributors, Total Factor Productivity may account for up to 60% of growth within economies.
cefinkjr caldreamer In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews.
caldreamer In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road.
Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews.
When I read this statement, I'm thinking one man with a RC engine. If you are talking about a handful of cars, maybe. If you are talking about real switching in a flat yard, it's a bit more complicated. One person can't be more than one place at a time. Handling long cuts and protecting each end means travel time to get into position.
In a related note, a van driver told us yesterday a UP VP was driving around our away from home terminal the other day. This VP saw 4 yard vans in front of the depot. Something that rarely happens, when you need one they are usually all gone. This VP wanted them abolished, saying North Platte got rid of theirs. We use vans a lot when putting together or yarding trains. The conductor alone can't be everywhere at once, the vans move him/her around has needed. So let's cut off the vans and let the conductor walk back and forth instead. Lets see if the savings from not having vans is more than the crew costs of more overtime and dog catch crews.
At our AFHT, the yard vans don't help in yarding so much, although local crews do use them. They take us to/from our change out points (3 locations) which aren't at the depot. Plus they are used to run crews to outlaying points to pick up trains. The local manager said he wasn't going to abolish them.
greyhoundsIf the cost of operating a train is reduced, more trains will be operated. That is real economics, not the nonsense ...
If there are (any) instances where significant layoffs (or off shoring of production) were followed by comensurate price reductions passing the resultant savings on to the customer...I am completely unaware of them. Perhaps you would care to document your hypothesis with real world examples?
Please try to avoid instances where foreign companies purchased name brand american entities and then began pasting the namebrand label onto their existing product lines, those would not be a fair comp.
zardozIn the 70's the Milwaukee Road began running "Sprint" trains. They were run by a two-man crew, and were strictly IM trains of short length. IIRC, the government gave the Milwaukee Road an operating subsidy, as this service was back then considered experimental. A few years later, the C&NW began a similar service to compete with the Sprint trains. The C&NW trains were identified as 477 for westbound and 488 for eastbound, and ran between Chicago and Minneapolis. All other trains were instructed to stay clear of these hotshots; if you did not there were a number of officials that would demand an explanation.
3-man not 2-man, AFAIK.
Systemwide, the Milwaukee Road had already moved to 3-man crews while in bankruptcy: "The agreement eliminated firemen and second brakemen on all Milwaukee Road freight train and yard crews in an effort to reduce the Milwaukee Road's labor costs. The bankruptcy court approved the agreement, which stated specifically that "ll road freight train and yard crews shall consist of no more than one conductor (foreman) and one brakeman (yard helper) ... unless otherwise agreed"
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/04/page/60/article/milwaukee-road-stakes-future-on-sprint-piggyback
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19800617&id=ZuYjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tCsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6755,3856804&hl=en
Back in the 1960s, the railroads and trainmen negotiated using a conductor and one brakeman on any train running on (whole or in part) a branchline. There were some provisions protecting all trainmen on the property at the time. In effect it meant that in slow times a protected man could work the missing brakeman's job if there was no other work available. I write this to show that they have agreed to reduce people before. Also, as in the recently voted down BNSF contract, there most likely will be some protection for those working.
BNSF was very generous in it's protections. To me it was too generous, almost to the point I think they thought the number of employees receiving the protection would be small and/or relatively short term. Or if not small or short term, they could whittle away those protections in future contracts. Despite language in the contract that the protection would be life-time.
cx500 In the dim recesses of my mind there is a faint memory of one exception from something like 30 years or more ago. It was probably either C&NW or MILW where a specific new dedicated, premium, freight service was introduced in one corridor with reduced crews, and size limits on the train. Obviously the innovation eventually died.
In the dim recesses of my mind there is a faint memory of one exception from something like 30 years or more ago. It was probably either C&NW or MILW where a specific new dedicated, premium, freight service was introduced in one corridor with reduced crews, and size limits on the train. Obviously the innovation eventually died.
A few years later, the C&NW began a similar service to compete with the Sprint trains. The C&NW trains were identified as 477 for westbound and 488 for eastbound, and ran between Chicago and Minneapolis. All other trains were instructed to stay clear of these hotshots; if you did not there were a number of officials that would demand an explanation.
The C&NW trains were also operated by a two-person crew via special arrangement with the unions (IIRC, crews were given either a 20% or a $20 'bonus' for operating with a "short crew"). This was done during a time when some trains still had 5-person crews. The trains were also "inter-divisional", meaning that the crews did not change at Butler; instead they ran through the Milwaukee terminal going from Proviso directly to Adams.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.